In re Yaneth Lopez, 13-26-00042-CV, February 17, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a mandatory venue transfer under Texas Family Code § 155.201(b). Despite the Relator’s argument that the trial court was required to transfer the case in the absence of a controverting affidavit, the Court held that the Relator failed to provide a record sufficient to establish a clear abuse of discretion or the lack of an adequate remedy on appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) litigation, venue is often the first and most critical strategic battleground, particularly when a child has resided in a new county for six months. This case reinforces a vital procedural hurdle: even when a statute appears “mandatory” and the opposing party fails to file a timely controverting affidavit, the Relator still carries the absolute burden of providing an appellate record that affirmatively proves the trial court’s error. For family law practitioners, this serves as a reminder that mandamus is not a rubber stamp for venue disputes; the adequacy of the record and the fulfillment of the Relator’s evidentiary burden are paramount to overcoming the heavy presumption that a trial court acted within its discretion.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Yaneth Lopez filed a motion for mandatory transfer of venue pursuant to Texas Family Code § 155.201(b), asserting that the child involved in the proceeding had resided in a different county for the requisite six-month period. The Real Party in Interest, Anthony Michael Scott, filed a response to the petition. Lopez contended that because no controverting affidavit was filed to challenge the factual basis of her motion, the trial court had a ministerial duty to transfer the case. Following the trial court’s denial of her motion, Lopez sought mandamus relief, appearing pro se before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals to compel the transfer.
Issues Decided
The Court addressed whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion by denying a motion for mandatory venue transfer in a SAPCR proceeding when the Relator alleged a lack of a controverting affidavit. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Relator met the rigorous two-pronged burden required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Rules Applied
The Court’s analysis centered on Texas Family Code § 155.201(b), which mandates the transfer of a proceeding to another county if the child has resided there for six months or longer. Procedurally, the Court applied the standard mandamus framework established in In re Illinois National Insurance and Walker v. Packer, which requires the Relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy on appeal. The Court further noted that while Proffer v. Yates establishes that mandamus is generally available to enforce mandatory venue provisions in SAPCR cases—to ensure parents are not forced to undergo trials that are “for naught”—the Relator still maintains the burden of proof under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.
Application
The Court began its analysis by acknowledging the established precedent that mandamus is the proper vehicle to enforce mandatory SAPCR venue transfers. However, the Court emphasized that the Relator bears the burden of providing a record that supports the request for relief. In this instance, although Lopez argued that the absence of a controverting affidavit necessitated a transfer under the Family Code, the appellate court found that she had not met her evidentiary and legal burden. The Court noted that it had fully examined the petition, the response, and the reply, but found the Relator’s showing insufficient. Because the Relator failed to demonstrate exactly how the trial court’s application of the law was “clear error” based on the record provided, the Court could not find an abuse of discretion. The two-page memorandum opinion did not identify the Relator’s shortcomings.
Holding
The Court held that the Relator failed to satisfy the first prong of the mandamus standard, as she did not prove that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue.
The Court further held that the Relator failed to demonstrate that she lacked an adequate remedy on appeal. Consequently, having failed to meet the burden of proof on either requirement for the extraordinary remedy, the Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus.
Practical Application
This case underscores the danger of procedural complacency in venue disputes. Practitioners often assume that the failure of the opposing party to file a controverting affidavit under Section 155.204 results in an automatic “win” that a trial court cannot disturb. However, In re Lopez demonstrates that the appellate court will not rescue a Relator who provides an incomplete or insufficient mandamus record. When pursuing mandamus on a venue issue, you must ensure the record includes not just your motion and the proof of service, but the specific evidence (affidavits or testimony transcripts) that triggered the mandatory duty, as well as a record of the hearing to show the trial court was squarely presented with the mandatory nature of the statute.
Checklists
Perfection of the Mandamus Record
- Ensure the record includes the original motion to transfer and all supporting affidavits establishing the child’s residence for the preceding six months.
- Include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s order denying the transfer.
- Provide a transcript of the hearing on the motion to transfer to demonstrate that the trial court was made aware of the lack of a controverting affidavit.
- Verify that all documents in the appendix are properly authenticated pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k).
Strategy for Mandatory Venue Transfers
- File the motion to transfer venue at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid any argument of waiver or “substantial participation” in the existing court.
- If no controverting affidavit is filed within the statutory period (the first Monday after the 20th day after service of notice of the motion), immediately request a hearing to move for an order of transfer.
- At the hearing, move to strike any late-filed responses or unsworn arguments that attempt to circumvent the mandatory nature of Section 155.201.
- Explicitly cite Proffer v. Yates to the trial court to remind the bench that denial of a mandatory transfer is subject to immediate mandamus correction.
Citation
In re Yaneth Lopez, No. 13-26-00042-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 17, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion
~~4ff94c89-adcb-40d3-8966-0aa2dfabe451~~
Share this content: